Category Archives: Uncategorized

#SeaWorld Signs Up for Public Debate – Yes, You Read That Right.

by

0

See on Scoop.it – #OrcaAvengers

Since the release of the 2013 documentary “Blackfish,” SeaWorld has tried everything in its power to divert attention away from its shady business operation, which most recently, has included the use of psychoactive drugs on its orcas and the impregnation of ANOTHER female orca before her appropriate breeding age.

Open letters denouncing “Blackfish” were penned, videos from SeaWorld supporters were released, and the entertainment giant even created its own volunteer “Truth Team,” to show the world that SeaWorld isn’t guilty of anything and to protect our “privilege” of “experiencing marine mammals up close in ways that are educational, inspirational and that advance science.”

So, let’s get this straight — we now have a right to take away another’s chance at freedom because we are “privileged” to see them? Debatable, SeaWorld, debatable, along with pretty much everything else the company has said.

Yet, surprisingly, SeaWorld has finally decided to engage in a public discussion even though, at the start of 2014, the company quickly wimped out of a public debate challenge initiated by the team from “Blackfish” and the Oceanic Preservation Society (makers of “The Cove” and the upcoming eco-thriller “6”).

Quietly announced on EventBrite, The Voice of San Diego posted ticketing information for a panel discussion to be held on June 5, 2014 that will be focused on the following question: What does SeaWorld offer San Diego and how do we balance animal rights concerns with the company’s contributions in our region?

This event is most likely an offshoot of the debate surrounding the now postponed decision for San Diego’s “Blackfish bill,” which was introduced by California Assemblymember Richard Bloom (D-Santa Monica) earlier this year.

While it will be great to see SeaWorld finally speaking more directly to the public about its operations, the panel discussion already has the markings of the company’s other shaky PR gimmicks.

First off, the event is not called a debate, but rather a panel, and out of the four panelists, only one is considered “counter” to SeaWorld’s mission. The event page lists the following speakers:

Naomi Rose, marine mammal scientist with the D.C.-based Animal Welfare Institute; she was a key consultant for “Blackfish” and likely helped craft the so-called Blackfish bill;Susan Gray Davis, former UC San Diego professor who wrote a book about SeaWorld San Diego and can speak to local contributions;SeaWorld Senior TrainerSeaWorld Veterinarian/ Researcher  

Who the SeaWorld trainer and veterinarian/researcher are remains to be seen, but looks like it’s a case of three against one. If there was any interest for a real public debate concerning marine mammal captivity, then the panel would have been more balanced instead of one-sided (although, it should be noted, that Naomi Rose is a strong voice of support for the anti-captivity movement, yet she is still just one voice from this side).

What’s more, the panel discussion seems like just another attempt to get SeaWorld out of the deep, consuming water that is the “Blackfish Effect” (which has resulted in protests along with a drop in attendance in early 2014), as can be concluded by the panel’s very narrow, SeaWorld-tailored question on what the company offers San Diego. True, the remainder of the question mentions a potential jumping off point for animal rights topics (“how do we balance animal rights concerns with the company’s contributions in our region?”), however it’s main focus is on how SeaWorld benefitsSan Diego — not the welfare of its orcas and trainers, which is where the real debate needs to stem from.

It seems we’ll all just have to wait and see what happens with this panel discussion (hopefully there will be some progress — we’ve been waiting, SeaWorld, c’mon, now!), but in the mean time, tell us what you think with a comment below – do you believe this debate is a good thing or will it be just another one of SeaWorld’s attempts to twist the truth?

Image source: Glen Scarborough/Flickr

See on www.onegreenplanet.org

“My photo used to help raise awareness of the ethics behind Civet Cat coffee.” Paul Williams.

by

0

See on Scoop.it – Titan Explores

Posted by Paul Williams

‘Cut the Crappacino’ – my photo used to help raise awareness of the ethics behind Civet Cat coffee.

A few years ago I tried the curious ‘cage-free’ blend of Civet cat coffee when I visited a coffee farmer in India. Now one of my civet cat photos is being used as part of a campaign against the booming industry of farmed civet cat coffee in South East Asia “Cut the Crappucino”

Civet coffee, or Kopi Luwak as it’s known in Indonesia, is one of the world’s most expensive drinks, selling for up to £70 per cup – you can try some in Selfridges. It’s made from coffee beans, which have been partially digested by Civet cats, small mammals that look like a cross between a weasel and a cat. Their digestive enzymes denature the beans and alter the final taste, which according to coffee experts, gives the coffee its uniquely smooth and rich flavour. But is it cruel or unethical?

The Ethical Blend: In a small village close to Bangalore in South India I met Ganesh, a coffee farmer, locally famous for his special brew. Every December his estate is visited by a hoard of tiny palm civets who come for the succulent red coffee fruits, selectively picking the ripest and sweetest, wolfing them down during the night. While the damage is minimal many crop producers might go to the extreme to protect their livelihood from such an invasion, yet for Ganesh, a keen Wildlife watcher, it’s actually a treat. Since reading an article in National Geographic about the production of Kopi Luwak in Korea he has simply just let the Civets get on with their nocturnal gorging. On occasion he even catches them in the act and just keeps his distance observing them as they stand on their hind legs to reach the best fruit. ‘It’s only the fruity outer layer that their interested in’ He goes on to tell me how the two coffee beans at the core of each fruit are concentrated, cleaned and processed as they pass through the civets digestive tract, eventually being dumped – usually under a coffee plant for Ganesh to find in the morning. ‘All I have to do is go around popping the poop into a basket for roasting later.’ he says with a grin.

See on www.thedodo.com

High School Students Protest Prom At #SeaWorld Demand Freedom For Orcas.

by

0

See on Scoop.it – #OrcaAvengers

One San Diego student is gaining ground in his campaign to move Mt. Carmel High School’s prom from SeaWorld by launching a petition that has already gained over 600 signatures. Zach Affolter set up the petition after he noticed friends’ were upset about the location of their prom.

 “They were just like, ‘Hey, our prom’s at SeaWorld … I’m still going to go but I really don’t feel good about going,'” said Affolter who attends a nearby high school.

While he told local 10News that he understands it may be too late for the school to move the prom — the event is scheduled for May 31 — he has been gaining lots of attention and traction for the cause to boycott the marine parks. The petition is also aimed at the district’s middle and elementary schools, which still take classes on field trips to SeaWorld.

The petition reads:

Not only are these activities promoting animal abuse and cruelty, instead of the ever-important values of conservation and environmentalism, but it also surrounds students in the middle of a controversy. Never should students feel the need of removing themselves from an activity or feel guilt when participating.

Affolter notes that his goal is not to close SeaWorld — but for the company to end its captive orca breeding program and release its whales to sea pens.

See on www.thedodo.com

Japanese ships killing whales ‘inside sanctuary’

by

0

See on Scoop.it – Titan Explores

Aerial footage released by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society appears to show the bloodied remains of three minke whales.

By Hannah Strange

3:31AM GMT 06 Jan 2014

Three minke whales lie on the deck of the Japanese whaling vessel Nisshin Maru in the Southern Ocean (Sea Shepherd Australia Ltd/Tim Watters)

Activists have captured rare images of protected whales slaughtered by a Japanese fleet in what is said to be an internationally recognised ocean sanctuary, offering a stark insight into Japan’s secretive but much-criticised whaling practices.

See on telania.wordpress.com

We must put a price on #Nature

by

0

See on Scoop.it – Titan Explores

There can be little doubt that producing enough food without doing irreparable damage to the Earth’s biodiversity and to our health is one of the biggest challenges we face. It is a problem exacerbated by the enormous problems of climate change and rapid global population growth.

As some of you know, for the past three decades I have sought to demonstrate the benefits of an agro-ecological approach through my own efforts as a farmer. So I appreciate only too well from first-hand experience just how difficult it is to make the approach viable and, more to the point, why it is so difficult in economic terms.

The financial odds are heavily stacked against you and the polluter most definitely does not pay! I was therefore tremendously heartened that my plea two years ago in Washington to work out what it really costs us to produce food in different ways struck such a chord with many of you here today.

If I was to identify one of the biggest pieces missing from the jigsaw it would be the principle of the polluter paying for the damage the polluter causes. The damage done to soils and water systems – let alone to the oceans which are out of sight and out of mind – is one of those costs not factored into farming at the moment, and yet it is such a huge cost.

Understandably, the idea of making the polluter pay suggests that costs will go up and profits will be limited, which is a big concern for those involved in large scale, industrial food-producing operations.

There are powerful vested interests at stake in our centralised food systems, but if you consider the sheer scale of the damage done by maintaining that status quo – in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, the depletion of natural capital, public health costs and its impact on the social and cultural fabric of communities -then it quickly becomes clear that we play a dangerous game if we neglect the welfare of the very elements that support food production.

What is more, does the idea of the polluter paying actually result in business suffering? There are plenty of examples in other sectors where it is quite the reverse.

Take the idea of a landfill tax. When a charge has been placed on the dumping of waste it has dramatically changed a society’s approach to recycling – and produced jobs. Or take the deal struck by Norway and Guyana to pay for the preservation of rainforests through funds earned from fossil fuel extraction.

So, I wonder, could it be the same for food and farming? Could the principle of the polluter paying actually inspire innovation that leads to economic benefits and generally propagate the practice of a more responsible approach?

This is just one of the bullets we have to bite. We have to find a way of valuing, in financial terms, the increasing damage done to the Earth’s life-support systems by our over-reliance on intensive, chemical-based, monocultural farming systems. And then we have to look honestly at how producers can enjoy a profit if they switch to a more agro-ecological approach.

I say this because I meet many open-minded farmers and food companies who tell me they would love to take a more ecologically sound approach, but they simply cannot afford to – the numbers just don’t add up.

It is hard, if not impossible, to compete against specialised systems of cropping or intensive livestock production, given the costs of the damage done by non-renewable chemical fertilizers and pest controls are passed onto the environment, human health and to future generations. And often it is perverse subsidy regimes which perpetuate such a situation.

It is the economic invisibility of Nature that is the root problem. The value of the planet’s ecosystems has not been taken into account, fully and consistently, in our decision-making systems; we forget that the ultimate source of all economic capital is natural capital and not the other way round.

This is why I set up my Accounting for Sustainability Project almost ten years ago to help organizations, some of which are here today, account more accurately for natural and social capital.

And this is why I very much hope that the outcome of today’s gathering will be the commissioning of a major study to explore, once and for all, whether it is actually more affordable and profitable in the long term to farm by putting Nature at the heart of the process – that is, if we include the true costs in the bottom line, rather than exclude them.

This is key. Otherwise our capacity to feed the world’s rising population on the back of increasingly weakened ecosystems will lead to more and more conflict and misery on an unimaginable scale, which is not a legacy we can leave to our children and grandchildren.

That is why your discussions today are crucial, and why I can only encourage you to dismiss the feeling that you are swimming against a much greater tide. The ripples your efforts produce from events like today’s do have the capacity to turn that tide. Not only that, but they will!

See on www.theecologist.org

Public Input Sought on New Rules for #Bears in Captivity.

by

0

See on Scoop.it – Titan Explores

December 16, 2013

RESTON, Va. – In Virginia and around the country, hundreds of bears in captivity live in small, concrete pits and cages without a hint of their natural habitat. Since they cannot speak for themselves, one of the world’s largest animal welfare groups wants humans to speak up for them. 

Delcianna Winders, director of captive law, PETA Foundation, said the USDA is taking public comment on stronger rules for humane treatment of bears, prompted by a lawsuit by her organization. Under the Animal Welfare Act, she said, bears used for exhibition are supposed to be treated humanely. 

“However, the regulations that are applied are exceedingly general,” she said, “and the USDA has failed to protect bears under these standards.”

PETA’S lawsuit asked for more space, proper nutrition and a place for bears to forage, climb and bathe, among other conditions. Winders said roadside zoos are the biggest culprits for violations. About a year ago, a roadside zoo director in Fairfax County was convicted of animal cruelty and sentenced to a month in jail. 

Scientific research has surfaced over the years showing what bears need, Winders explained. Bears are intelligent and as complex as primates, and can suffer from stress and physiological dysfunction in captivity, she said.

“So, 30 years ago, there may have been an excuse for keeping a bear in a concrete pit, arguably. At this point, there’s absolutely no excuse,” Winders said.

PETA has been working for more than a year to get federal government attention on this issue, and is counting on the public to weigh in, she added.

Public comments are being taken by the USDA until Jan. 27 at www.regulations.gov.

– See more at: http://www.publicnewsservice.org/2013-12-16/animal-welfare/public-input-sought-on-new-rules-for-bears-in-captivity/a36298-1#sthash.P4CWSNBs.dpuf

See on www.publicnewsservice.org

#Charity Sector Must Address Criticisms Following Six Figure Salary Revelations.

by

0

See on Scoop.it – Titan Explores

How charitable is the charity sector? It depends who you ask. If you are the executive of one of Britain’s leading foreign aid charities you are likely to give a positive answer, but then you would be a beneficiary of this generosity of spirit. If, however, you are one of thousands of unpaid interns currently working for free for charities across the UK, you might be inclined to disagree.

Earlier this week the Telegraph reported that the number of executives paid more than £100,000 has risen from 19 to 30 at Britain’s 14 leading foreign aid charities, over the past three years. The research also revealed the number of workers earning more than £60,000 increased by 16% between 2010 and 2012. The indignation expressed by some charity bosses in response to criticism at the revelations was telling.

“Charities shouldn’t be ashamed of paying people what they are worth,” fumed Sir Stephen Bubb, Chief Executive of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (Acevo), “It’s essential that the sector attracts skilled and experienced professionals, not keen amateurs.”

Sir Bubb’s point was reiterated by several prominent figures, and it might have some merit were in not for the blatant hypocrisy involved when one considers the sector’s flagrant and widespread exploitation of young talent.

The news about executive pay follows a report on unpaid internships in the third sector, published by the campaign group Intern Aware and Unite the Union in May. The report revealed the disturbing prevalence of unpaid internships within charities, which are often advertised as ‘volunteer opportunities’ to evade paying the national minimum wage.

Calling for an end to unpaid internships, the report claims that over a third of the top 50 charity employers in England and Wales don’t pay their interns. Its findings were corroborated in a government review by the former head of the NSPCC, Dame Mary Marsh, who also criticised the prevalence of charity internships and recommended they be replaced by a new recruitment strategy, similar to Teach First – the Government’s strategy to widen participation in teaching.

In light of these circumstances the six figure salaries earned by some charity bosses appear particularly obscene, as do any attempts to justify them on the grounds that they are necessary in order to attract the best talent. For this argument to have any credibility it would need to be applied across the board – not only to those at the top but also to those starting out on their career path.

Yet the reports on unpaid internships were also met by indignation from some sections of the charity sector. In a blog on the website thirdsector.co.uk entitled ‘Are unpaid interns really a problem?’ former senior charity worker Wally Harbert issued an impassioned argument in favour of the current recruitment model. “…should people be stigmatised for wanting to volunteer?” he asked, adding that “today’s gross inequalities will not be undone by tampering with the system of interns, which will lead the wealthy to obtain privileges in other ways.”

Of course nobody is suggesting that getting rid of unpaid internships is the answer to all of society’s woes – though it might be a start – still less that volunteers should be stigmatised. But while the legal lines between legitimate voluntary roles and unpaid internships may be blurred, many charity interns are clearly victims of exploitation. Often they are given high levels of responsibility, conduct tasks which the organisation relies upon and work on a full time basis. All the while they are told the organisation cannot afford to pay them a wage, an excuse some graduates may now be less willing to accept.

Rather than continue to dismiss legitimate criticisms aimed at their sector, charity leaders must act in collaboration with the Charity Commission – The regulator for charities in England and Wales – to ensure they are appropriately addressed. This would involve implementing some of the recommendations proposed by Dame Marsh in her review, as well as heeding the advice of William Shawcross, the head of the Commission who warned that “disproportionate salaries risk bringing organisations and the wider charitable world into disrepute.”

Failing to act could have grave consequences for a sector whose virtues are in danger of being severely undermined by the elitist structures of some of its largest organisations.

See on www.huffingtonpost.co.uk